El Alamein

El Alamein, Tobruk, I think some of the Tunisia fighting in 1943 was fairly static as well. Other than that, my understanding was that it was quite mobile even where the percentage of mechanized units was small. (which it was on all sides)

North Africa's hardly my specialty.

The only thing that was new in Blitzkrieg was the tank and tactical air support, otherwise the theory and practice of blitzkrieg is as old as the history of organised warfare.

Hi Jeff-S,

I wonder if it is really true that troop densities were exceptionally low in North Africa. The actual fighting almost all took place within about 80 kilometres of the coast and was largely dependent on the great coastal road built by the Italians between the wars. It was logistically virtually impossible to employ major forces further inland for any significant period.

Rommel had the equivalent of some ten German and Italian divisions to defend about 80 kilometres at El Alamein. The terrain was extremely open and offered the attacker little cover. When the extensive minefields are added in (not a problem in WWI) this was not a particularly easy position to crack by frontal assault.

In discussing North Africa, it should also be recalled that the Italians sent their best forces there and that these often fought stubbornly. In particular, it was the Italians who usually manned the fixed front line defences and usually bore the first impact of British Commonwealth assaults. This was not a German-only theatre.

Cheers,

Sid.

The only thing that was new in Blitzkrieg was the tank and tactical air support, otherwise the theory and practice of blitzkrieg is as old as the history of organised warfare.

Salut!

I asked myself what is with your absence here... I think you had exams, no?

About your comment, yes, basic of blitzkreig is old. The concept was practiced with another type of mobile units: cavalry (*).
But, let's not developed this here, i will open a new topic in pre world war 2 dedicated segment of this forum, if nothing appears in my LAN, at my job.

Iama

The only thing that was new in Blitzkrieg was the tank and tactical air support, otherwise the theory and practice of blitzkrieg is as old as the history of organised warfare.

Disagree somewhat. The single most important technical advance which made the modern blitz possible at all was the radio. The blitz was much more about command control.

For discussion on Blitzkrieg, please follow the existing topic:
http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?showtopic=1761

There were important achievements. The inadequate exhaust present in Mark I british tanks were fixed by 1917s with the apparition of the Mark III tank. Armour was upgraded too, as the germans were starting to use armour piercing bullets. The fuel tanks were also placed on the outside. All in all, the tanks were increasingly fiable for those times, but the revolution in their use was not there yet.

take care

Hi Imperialist,

Very true.

In WWI the British and French had developed tanks to the point where they could achieve a breakthrough. The Germans had done the same with their improved infantry tactics. However, neither side was able to exploit a breakthrough because they did not have the necessary doctrine and the necessary reliable mechanised assets to do so. For example, tanks then moved at little more than walking pace and were mechanically extremely unreliable. They were still incapable of deep exploitation.

The inter-war years gave time for all sides to develop the necessary doctrine and material assets to put it into practice. The Germans were most effective at this, probably because victory had made the Allies complacent. By 1939 only the Germans had managed to combine reliable armour and mechanisation, their superior infantry tactics and the new element of close air support into an effective doctrine - the Blitzkrieg. Other people had similar ideas, but only the Germans had actually made them effective by the beginning of WWII.

Cheers,

Sid.